Corner v Corner (Civil Cause 3 of 1987) [1990] MWHC 27 (8 March 1990)

IN THE HIGH Ore ae MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 3 OF 1987 eo eecceeces PETITIONER BETWEEN: CATHERINE B. CORNER - and = eng eae . HARRY B. CORNER... ......0..2.000- - > + -RESPONDENT va Coram: MPEGHA, J. Pha ‘ Chimasula Phiri, counsel for the petitioner Cf Ses a Respondent, present, unrepresented ae oo Rholowa, Official Interpreter ae . Longwe, Court Reporter JUDGMENT. ss Phe Petitioner in this case is praying for the disso- lution of her oe to the Respondent on grounds of cruelty. et a The parties were lawfully married at the Registrar & ag General's Office on 22nd November, 1980. They had been . living together, prior. to this date, as husband and wife. 7. under customary marriage since 1978. After the celebration — of their marriage on 22nd November, 1980 they cohabited Ab. and lived at Mpingwe and Kanjedza in the City of Blantyre. PATS The Petitioner comes from Ntcheu and the Respondent origi- oe fe - nally came from Chiradzulu District but now comes from Mpemba ‘fin Blantyre District. There are two issues of the marriage, ‘ namely, Maurice Chikumbutso Corner, male born on 19th October, . 1978 and Andrew Corner, male born on 21st February, 1982. I am ‘satisfied that both parties are Malawians and ‘domiciled here. I have therefore jurisdiction to hear this petition. / It was the Petitioner's evidence that after the cele- bration of their marriage they lived happily until 1981 when ‘the Respondent took to heavy drinking, beating her, -and.using abusive language. ithe specifically recalled that on 3rd May, 1986, the Respondent, who was working for Admarc and based and Mwanza, came to her house in Kanjedza. During the night, after he came back from his drinking spree, he asked her whether she had a story to tell him. When she said she did not have any stcry, he started beating her and she ran out of the nouse and hid herself in the pit iy latrine. When it was daylight, she came out of the pit latrine and the Respondent beat her again with clenched fists. She ran to the house of the Respondent's Uncle and stayed there until the following day when she learnt that the Respondent had gone back to Mwanza. She was swollen and could hardly eat anything for one week and did not report for duties during the same period. She subseouently packed all the Respondent's clothing and left them at his Uncles's house. The children are at school and she maintains them and pays school fees. The Respondent had never been to the house since November, 1386 and he is doing nothing in the up-bringing of the cniidren. This evidence of the inci- dent on 3rd May, 1985 is sipported by PW2, the Petitioner's sister, who was living with the Respondent during her school holidays. In cross-examining the Petitioner and her witness the Respondent tried to show that the incident occurred because he had found the Petitioner with a man who had slept in the house, but this was denied by both the Petitioner and her sister. The Respondent also tried to establish, when cross examining the Petitioner and her sister, that he never beat her because she did not go to hospital to get treatment and that there was no medical evidence to prove he had beaten her. The Respondent declined to give evidence on oath. Con- sidering the evidence before me, it is quite clear that on the 3rd of May, 1986 the Petitioner was severely beaten; that the Respondent beat the Petitioner because the Petitioner was found with a man on this material day is not supported by the evidence before me. It is also undisputed that since November, 1985 the Respondent has never supported the Peti- tioner nor the children of the: marriage despite the fact that he is employed by Admarc. It has been well settler! that legal cruelty as a ground for divorce may be defined as conduct of such a character as to have caused the danger -_o life, limb or health, bodily or mental. It is also well s2itled that although the courts are reluctant to grant a divotc2 on the ground of cruelty on one isolated act, the relic? will be granted where the act is one of gross cruelty, :zspecially if it raises a reason- able fear of further acts of :he same kind. Further, failure to maintain the Petitioner ani! the children of the marriage may be cruelty: Kamlangila v. ‘amlangila (1968-70) ALR Mal. 301. In the present case, the Petitioner's evidence clearly discloses cruelty in the lega. sense. f& accordingly allow the petition and grant her a Jacree nisi. The question of custody and maintenance of the children of the marriage Who eae to be adjourned to Chambers. The Respondent to be condemned in costs for this petition. Pronounced in open Court this 8th day of March, 1990 at Blantyre. fii. MHregha JUDGE oily, pap